X-Post-Cambridge Latin?

[Dmmetler]

A friend of mine who teaches High school Latin in England sent me some of the materials she uses for her Cambridge Latin based class, and I'm thinking it might be a better fit for DD right now than moving on to LfC B after she finishes LfC A, which would give her a chance to get into MCT next year. Right now, she's studying Grammar at a higher level in Latin than she is in English, and while it seems to work for her (she's eating up LfC A, with Minimus for dessert), I like the idea of alternating Latin programs or otherwise slowing her down rather than having her make it through LfC A-C by age 7 or so!

 

Would CL be a good fit for a language-loving 6 yr old who reads at pretty much any level she wants to read at?

[EKS]

I am using Cambridge with my high schooler, but I also plan to start it with my younger son next year. I much prefer Cambridge to Mimimus. The only thing that might be an issue is that the subject matter in the stories is targeted to an older audience.

[higginszoo]

Agreed, the reading level shouldn't be an issue. The scenarios are designed more for high school level students (I'm using it with a 12 year old, and it's working fine), but when he was her age, he'd often find that he could read material at that level, but found it boring because he didn't have the life experience to comprehend. Overall, he's finding it entertaining and he's learning without finding it intense at all (which is something he's rebelling against this year as he hits that early-teen stage). It's probably worth a try with a 6 year old, but you might want a backup that's written to a younger audience, just in case.

[nmoira]

I like the idea of alternating Latin programs or otherwise slowing her down rather than having her make it through LfC A-C by age 7 or so!

This has been my approach with 8yo DD the Elder. We're slowly working through both Latin Prep and CLC (North American edition). CLC is a great vocabulary builder, and Latin Prep has crystal clear explanations of the underlying grammar. IMHO, CLC would be sufficient on its own if done at a good pace, but benefits from the support a combination with a grammar based program when strolling leisurely through the course.

 

We particularly enjoy the stories in CLC, and stage exaggerated dramatic readings.

[Ester Maria]

Even though I dislike Cambridge Latin because of the method, it's hard to say whether it'd be a good or a bad idea without knowing the child at that age. I say you give it a try, gently, and then inform us on how it went. :D

[rootsnwings]

Esther Maria, can you elaborate on why you dislike Cambridge Latin? I've been using it for self study & have been having a really easy time catching on. I am NOT very good with foreign languages, as far as I know, but the method Cambridge uses seems to stick in my brain really, really easily! I'd love to hear the other side of the coin before moving forward with my ds & this curriculum.

 

TIA! :D

[Dmmetler]

What's the difference between the English edition and the North American Edition? Is it just the British spellings in the English part of the text?

 

I think we'll try a CL/LfC B combo after we finish LfC A/Minimus. She likes the word lists, chants and derivations, and is having no trouble with translations or labeling, but she really seems to snap into the vocabulary when she reads it as part of a text, and starting Minimus was when she started writing her own little stories and dialogues in Latin, so I think having the reading component of CL will help her-but I'll plan to pre-read and screen for content.

[Ester Maria]

Esther Maria, can you elaborate on why you dislike Cambridge Latin? I've been using it for self study & have been having a really easy time catching on.

When you finish the fifth book, PM me. I will send you two prose exerpts (short ones, promise - up to three paragraphs each) and one text in verses (short too, about a dozen verses only) to translate them, to the best of your ability, in the given time span (about 3 hours, which is plenty of time), without "cheating" online or googling things. I'll take your word for it that it's all your genuine work with no outside help (other than a medium-size Latin-English dictionary).

 

If you manage to do that for a B (about only a bit over 80%, I'm generous), having completed Cambridge and ONLY Cambridge... Then I'll change my opinion. And I promise I won't give you any text which regular Italian lycee students wouldn't be getting for homework or tests about their third year of studying ;), and you get detailed feedback. Deal? :)

Edited November 22, 2010 by Ester Maria

[nmoira]

 

When you finish the fifth book...

But this doesn't answer the question, and I was rather looking forward to your response. What is it about the method of which you disapprove? Do you have experience with a number of students who have completed the course?

[nmoira]

What's the difference between the English edition and the North American Edition? Is it just the British spellings in the English part of the text?

The NA edition has four books covering the same content instead of five. The biggest practical difference is that British case order is used. I think there may have been some other minor tweaking, but I haven't noticed anything when using the UK on-line materials.

 

ETA: Units 3 and 4 of the UK edition correspond to Unit 3 of the US edition. The first half of Unit 4 US contains Unit 5 UK, the rest is original texts.

Edited November 23, 2010 by nmoira
additional information

[forty-two]

But this doesn't answer the question, and I was rather looking forward to your response. What is it about the method of which you disapprove? Do you have experience with a number of students who have completed the course?

I've read quite a lot that CLC doesn't leave students ready to tackle "real" Latin without quite a bit of handholding, as well that there isn't enough grammar work in the text/wb themselves to enable students to translate accurately and precisely without outside supplemental work - that the focus w/ the grammar work is "getting the gist of the passage" rather than being able to distinguish between shades of meaning. I took EsterMaria's response as a somewhat tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement/pointing-out of those issues - that people who complete CLC just aren't at the same level as people who complete more rigorous programs. I've not made it through CLC personally yet, but CLC proponents on Latin lists tend to concede the grammar issue, either supplementing or arguing that it doesn't matter for most students in the first place.

[Ester Maria]

I've read quite a lot that CLC doesn't leave students ready to tackle "real" Latin without quite a bit of handholding, as well that there isn't enough grammar work in the text/wb themselves to enable students to translate accurately and precisely without outside supplemental work - that the focus w/ the grammar work is "getting the gist of the passage" rather than being able to distinguish between shades of meaning. I took EsterMaria's response as a somewhat tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement/pointing-out of those issues - that people who complete CLC just aren't at the same level as people who complete more rigorous programs. I've not made it through CLC personally yet, but CLC proponents on Latin lists tend to concede the grammar issue, either supplementing or arguing that it doesn't matter for most students in the first place.

Exactly. :)

 

But, alright, I will elaborate.

 

First, CLC emphasizes the so-called natural/direct method, which is a HUGE pet peeve of mine when it comes to Latin. I've written in great detail about my issues with natural method on these boards before, so not to repeat myself, let's just say that I'm a priori skeptical of any textbook which aims to teach Latin primarily through those lenses, i.e. through fictitious non-genuine texts and dialogues with very limited original resources input. The goal of studying Latin is not equivalent to the goal of studying modern foreign languages and therefore the methodology it requires is different, and it's the one emphasizing diachronic communication with the text. Textual, G-T approach followed by pure reading is THE way to go when learning a language "fossilized" in its cultural context.

 

Second, CLC "reconstructs" that cultural context with relatively plausible, but ultimately invented contextual details. The whole idea is to "reconstruct" the context and teach the language in such reconstructed context - as opposed to allowing a student to reconstruct the context FROM the original texts. There is way too much emphazis on pictures, "interesting details", so-called "culture and civilization" (which, instead of being DERIVED textually, are shoved down the students' throats before any genuine document is ever met). That's a BIG mistake. Culture and document are intertwined, we don't get document here, we don't get a set of documents of time, but a set of fictitious reconstructions which are used as a sort of "proxy" for the real thing.

 

Third, visually, the course is bad. Just SO MANY distractions! So many unnecessary photographs and pictures, shadowing the pages, unnecessary colors, and fluff content which serves to mask the lack of substantial content. The amount of all those should be at least halved to make the course tolerable.

 

Fourth, the way lexical items are listed (I have book II, fourth edition next to me) is laughable and just plain incorrect. First you get the word form they use, then infinitive/nominative form, and... ahem, that's it. Nonsense. If you ever listed a word like that past the very first Latin lesson, you'd get negative points. Even more so, the way words are listed next to the text is bad, because the whole point is that the student HIMSELF is able to navigate a dictionary and know which is the basic form to search for. The way words are listen in vocabulary checklists is incorrect as well. The whole course, from that point of view, leaves a "crashcourse" impression, and quite a bad one I must say. I seriously doubt one gains any substantial reading knowledge of actual original texts from that course alone.

 

Questions which follow texts are formed absurdly, basically locate the answer for you (as if you were an idiot and couldn't read the text without them telling you which lines to look for), and focus on the lowest level of analysis - plot. Again, they cannot focus on anything else because the course misses actual documents and actual context other than the one it "creates".

Nominal declensions are not studied systematically. Genitive and adjectives in the second book, dear God! Both are to be covered in the first third of the first book. There is a SERIOUS lack of a systematic approach in CLC, which drove me insane the first time I saw it. I would NEVER use such a book in teaching, no way.

Heck, even the way words are covered makes no sense, some very important words are found on much later stages and so forth. The whole course is messy, mishmashy, lacks a system behind it, and indulges ever too small attention spans of today's children (graphic distractions "help" too). It looks nice on the outside, but its actual content is quite low compared to many courses out there, and that which IS there is there in a non-systematic crazy fashion that has always produced more chaos than order in anyone's mind.

 

And finally, due to such poor unsystematic grammar, one can at most hope to get a "basic feel" of the language, but definitely not to master enough nuances to, when confronted with an original text, produce a decent quality translation or even read that text with enough reading fluency, as most of reading fluency was built on contemporary fiction stories written in Latin. Of course that it can't be the same as the student who struggled his way through Cicero, but because of that Cicero will know Latin syntax until he dies and his knowledge will be far more solid than the knowledge gained in courses such as CLC, Oerberg, etc., which are, essentially, what a good ol' friend (a medievalist who teaches Latin) calls "Latin for the lazy". I'm inclined to agree with her. There IS NO royal road to Latin grammar, let alone syntax, let alone the totality of the experience "fossilized" in that language from some epochs, which we must approach very carefully, with a full sense of a diachronic communication. The only way to do it properly is a serious, grammar-heavy, analytical approach, and then years of original texts following it, with careful translation AND free reading removed from grammatical signalling, and a lot more serious study of the corpus of the texts remaining to reconstruct the experience of the time and place than what CLC and Oerberg do.

 

I don't think that Wheelock's is a God of Latin or anything along those lines, but it is the best thing I've seen on the modern anglophone market. (Same goes for Athenaze for Greek, even if I still find many faults with that text.) CLC or Oerberg just cannot compete with it, Wheelock's produces actual, tangible, concrete knowledge, while CLC produces an illusion thereof.

 

Off before I become frustrated. This was brief. :D

[regentrude]

never mind - just saw your most recent post

[regentrude]

Thanks Ester Maria.

Now what would you recommend to a student who is not ready to tackle Wheelock?

My DS11 is using Cambridge (because I am clueless and don't know any Latin and it did look good to give it a try)- it seems to be just about the right level for a Middle school student. I just don't think he can handle anything as rigorous as Wheelock without losing interest - and I don't want to make Latin a battle because for us it really is not at the center of our curriculum (heretic that I am)

Agnes

[EKS]

Thanks Ester Maria.

Now what would you recommend to a student who is not ready to tackle Wheelock?

My DS11 is using Cambridge (because I am clueless and don't know any Latin and it did look good to give it a try)- it seems to be just about the right level for a Middle school student. I just don't think he can handle anything as rigorous as Wheelock without losing interest - and I don't want to make Latin a battle because for us it really is not at the center of our curriculum (heretic that I am)

Agnes

 

I would be interested in the answer as well.

[nmoira]

Off before I become frustrated. This was brief. :D

:D

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Every method has its weaknesses and grammar is the weakest part of the CLC on its face. This could be could be a problem if it is taught without an eye to ensuring the concepts are not only emphasized but applied as they are introduced. The Omnibus doesn't provide enough practice on its own, so this should be discussed along with the readings. In addition if I were only using CLC, I'd have the student learn the four principle parts of new verbs (something we do anyway) as part of a more comprehensive drilling of vocabulary (5-10 minutes each day).

 

DD the Elder loves CLC, but I find much of the value to be in the experience: the teaching, the discussion, the acting, the recitation. We don't just do the readings, translate once, and move on. I do however, think that CLC would be a terrible choice for even an unmotivated student. It wouldn't provide much of a framework for a child looking for the formula, so to speak; it's like Life of Fred in that respect; you can't learn from it passively or without curiosity, or for that matter, by simply reading through it once.

[Dmmetler]

Will it do any harm to use CLC in conjunction with LfC, then? I mostly just want to feed DD's Latin drive now and give her some foundation for when she's ready for a REAL Latin course in a few years. She loves LfC and loves the new words, but I noticed that once I bought Minimus and she sat down and read it at one sitting, she started writing in Latin and creating her own dialogues-and was able to apply the grammar rules, match the endings, and so on. I don't think she's going to be ready for real, true Latin texts for quite some time.

[forty-two]

Will it do any harm to use CLC in conjunction with LfC, then? I mostly just want to feed DD's Latin drive now and give her some foundation for when she's ready for a REAL Latin course in a few years. She loves LfC and loves the new words, but I noticed that once I bought Minimus and she sat down and read it at one sitting, she started writing in Latin and creating her own dialogues-and was able to apply the grammar rules, match the endings, and so on. I don't think she's going to be ready for real, true Latin texts for quite some time.

IMHO, no more harm than the impact reading twaddley English books as a kid has on one's ability to read the classics as a young adult :tongue_smilie:. I mean, if that's *all* you do, it's not looking promising ;), but so long as you realize you have to gradually step it up in order to reach the classics, there's no harm in it, imo. (And I'm more inclined to include modern language techniques in learning the classical languages, so I think it will help build low-to-mid-level proficiency, which, while not getting you to the classics on its own, is a good foundation to build on.) And she's just 6 - she's got plenty of time to go deeper when she's in upper elementary/middle school, and still have plenty of time to read the classics in high school. Some of the concern w/ CLC is that kids start it in middle school/high school, and by the time they finish the series, they only have a year or two left to read the classics - they have no time for extra remediation.

 

Anyway, why not play around with them while your dd's young and has time to play with Latin? Worst that could happen is that she's not ready or doesn't like them, and then you stop - no harm, no foul. But it sounds like she might enjoy them :).

[Ester Maria]

Thanks Ester Maria.

Now what would you recommend to a student who is not ready to tackle Wheelock?

My DS11 is using Cambridge (because I am clueless and don't know any Latin and it did look good to give it a try)- it seems to be just about the right level for a Middle school student. I just don't think he can handle anything as rigorous as Wheelock without losing interest - and I don't want to make Latin a battle because for us it really is not at the center of our curriculum (heretic that I am)

Agnes

Have you checked German/Austrian gymnasium textbooks? It's been quite a while since I've had some experience with them, and they might have changed meanwhile, but I'd give it a try.

 

It's not that Cambridge will damage anyone beyond repair (especially if they plan on continuing with other texts later); it's just that it's not a preferable textbook if you have other options.

[Laura Corin]

Exactly. :)

 

 

And finally, due to such poor unsystematic grammar, one can at most hope to get a "basic feel" of the language, but definitely not to master enough nuances to, when confronted with an original text, produce a decent quality translation or even read that text with enough reading fluency, as most of reading fluency was built on contemporary fiction stories written in Latin.

 

I learned from Cambridge Latin in the 1970s. We went on to study book 4 of the Aeneid for an exam. The teacher gave us a literal translation which we had to learn by heart, then get clues from the text as to where to begin to regurgitate 'our' translation.

 

FWIW, the boys' school does a year of Minimus from ages 9-10, then two years of Latin Prep from ages 10-12 (covering book 1), then starts on Cambridge Latin. The teachers continue the systematic grammar approach in parallel with Cambridge.

 

At home, Calvin studied Latin Prep up to the middle of book 3. He is now studying Cambridge book 3 and has expressed how pleased he is to have the grammar background that he has from Latin Prep.

 

Laura

[ElizaG]

I did the first couple of books of Cambridge with an "old-school" British teacher who drilled us frequently to make sure we had the grammar down pat. I guess I figured that was typical. Kind of like Singapore Math; it's pretty much a given that you're going to need extra drill. I don't see that this is necessarily a problem, just something to keep in mind.

 

OTOH, I agree with Ester Maria about the excessive color pictures being a distraction. (Hmm, also like Singapore Math.) :tongue_smilie: The books we used 20 years ago just had black and white line drawings. I'm thinking about hunting down some older copies for my children to use.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Eleanor

[Bird Girl]

Are color pictures really that big an issue? I can't speak to the Cambridge text, but the color in Singapore is often used to help provide explanation (one color for the tens, another for the ones, for example) It doesn't seem like that big a deal to me if the chapter title comes in yellow, or what have you.

[Laura Corin]

I did the first couple of books of Cambridge with an "old-school" British teacher who drilled us frequently to make sure we had the grammar down pat. I guess I figured that was typical. Kind of like Singapore Math; it's pretty much a given that you're going to need extra drill. I don't see that this is necessarily a problem, just something to keep in mind.

 

 

With extra drill (as at my boys' school) Cambridge can work. If this requirement is not made explicit, however, it might not be the best programme for novice teachers of beginners. All of us have a background in maths, so it's easier for us to feel where drill is necessary; for beginners at Latin an all-in-one explicit package might be safer.

 

Laura

[Kathy in Richmond]

A teacher on the Latinteach list just posted this fascinating link to a video of a primary school in England which is using Cambridge Latin successfully with youngsters.

 

~Kathy

[Ester Maria]

Are color pictures really that big an issue? I can't speak to the Cambridge text, but the color in Singapore is often used to help provide explanation (one color for the tens, another for the ones, for example) It doesn't seem like that big a deal to me if the chapter title comes in yellow, or what have you.

Colors often distract the student, whether he be aware of it or no. Even if colors are cute, one concentrates the best on a dense black-and-white text, without too many distractions.

Unfortunately, it boarders impossible nowadays to get materials without these distractions, but when putting my things toghether, I try to make it plain text, and it really does provide a sort of relief for concentration with my children.

 

The additional problem is that a lot of those bombastic, color-filled materials actually attempt to hide this way a severe lack of content. Also, a lot of it is done for financial purposes - of course that you earn more if you "split" the material into several books, add lots of unnecessary things and distractions, and thus sell more books than a single, but a more dense one.

A teacher on the Latinteach list just posted this fascinating link to a video of a primary school in England which is using Cambridge Latin successfully with youngsters.

This video pretty much demonstrates what's wrong with Cambridge - behind computer games, first-level texts, acting out silly shows and "having fun" with Latin, there hides an inadequate knowledge for somebody who has studied it as long as those children have. If you listen very carefully to what they're saying, you'll notice that they essentially know close to nothing, it's all variations of the same basic-level things. Give these kids an actual text in classical Latin and they'll be lost - and they're not even on the way of getting there.

 

It probably also "helps" that a lot of their teachers aren't Latin specialists, but "enthusiasts who learn alongside children". Of course that to that profile of people Cambridge fits, because they themselves don't really know what they're teaching, and Cambridge is "lots of fun".

[Kathy in Richmond]

 

This video pretty much demonstrates what's wrong with Cambridge - behind computer games, first-level texts, acting out silly shows and "having fun" with Latin, there hides an inadequate knowledge for somebody who has studied it as long as those children have. If you listen very carefully to what they're saying, you'll notice that they essentially know close to nothing, it's all variations of the same basic-level things. Give these kids an actual text in classical Latin and they'll be lost - and they're not even on the way of getting there.

 

It probably also "helps" that a lot of their teachers aren't Latin specialists, but "enthusiasts who learn alongside children". Of course that to that profile of people Cambridge fits, because they themselves don't really know what they're teaching, and Cambridge is "lots of fun".

 

Well, I'm not a Cambridge user myself, and I agree with you in not liking it for serious Latin studies at the middle or high school level. I'm not sure, though, that it's a bad thing to play with Latin like this in the early years, if it gets the kids excited about later studies. My son's public elementary school did "fun" Latin studies in the fourth and fifth grades. I'm not sure that he learned much, but it definitely sparked an interest. That exposure led him to want to pursue Latin when he began to homeschool in the sixth grade. My daughter began her Latin studies earlier since she was homeschooled longer, but we started with a more playful approach in her younger years. In retrospect, I'm very happy with the results.

 

I was the "enthusiast learning alongside" my kids, with no previous Latin background. It worked for us.:) I will grant you that it's tough to pull off and is never the ideal situation (I'm a mathematician, and I can see the benefit of having a math teacher who knows more advanced math than the level her students are working on). But we were constrained somewhat by money, and I have an independent do-it-yourself streak... And it's fun to snuggle with them on the sofa while figuring out Latin grammar together.:D

 

Both of my kids (and myself) were working with authentic Latin texts by their last few years of high school. My daughter is pursuing a double major in Classics/Latin language at her university. They administered a placement test last fall when she arrived on campus, and she placed into their advanced courses. I *am* glad now that she has more knowledgeable teachers to guide her further studies, but I'd hate to see homeschool moms give up on the idea that they can't start at home learning with their kids.

 

~Kathy

[Ester Maria]

I'm not sure, though, that it's a bad thing to play with Latin like this in the early years, if it gets the kids excited about later studies.

It's not a bad thing, as long as no bad habits are formed right at the beginning of their studies - since, as we all know, bad habits acquired early in the studying of any discipline tend to "fossilize" later and be difficult to get rid of. If nothing of the kind happens, not a bad thing. :)

I was the "enthusiast learning alongside" my kids, with no previous Latin background. It worked for us.:)

Possibly, but it's a different situation - you were one, with two children, plenty of time at your disposal (with all the flexibility of a homeschooling lifestyle); it's a completely different environment, quality of studies, etc.

On the other hand, putting a dangerously unprepared person into a classroom full of kids, in an official school context, with limited time and resources such as Cambridge, and it's pretty much bound to remain a play-level, not only start out that way. While it's probably not going to hurt (since they probably won't even learn enough to reach a level at which dangerous mistakes can happen and fossilize), in the long run it also won't lead to the level needed to tackle texts - at least not with Cambridge alone.

My daughter is pursuing a double major in Classics/Latin language at her university. They administered a placement test last fall when she arrived on campus, and she placed into their advanced courses.

Out of curiosity, what did the placement test consist of (I mean, which texts, what grammatical content was covered?)? I'm just curious generally about the type of placement tests those universities offer. :)

[Kathy in Richmond]

It's not a bad thing, as long as no bad habits are formed right at the beginning of their studies - since, as we all know, bad habits acquired early in the studying of any discipline tend to "fossilize" later and be difficult to get rid of. If nothing of the kind happens, not a bad thing. :)

 

Possibly, but it's a different situation - you were one, with two children, plenty of time at your disposal (with all the flexibility of a homeschooling lifestyle); it's a completely different environment, quality of studies, etc.

On the other hand, putting a dangerously unprepared person into a classroom full of kids, in an official school context, with limited time and resources such as Cambridge, and it's pretty much bound to remain a play-level, not only start out that way. While it's probably not going to hurt (since they probably won't even learn enough to reach a level at which dangerous mistakes can happen and fossilize), in the long run it also won't lead to the level needed to tackle texts - at least not with Cambridge alone.

 

Yep, I agree with you here. The "tough" part that I was referring to in my post is persisting at a language study after you get to the stage where it's no longer easy. And as I said, I'm not a Cambridge-liker. I used a lot of different resources (Artes Latinae, Henle, Wheelocks, Oerberg) but discarded Cambridge as too fluffy when I first looked at it.

 

Out of curiosity, what did the placement test consist of (I mean, which texts, what grammatical content was covered?)? I'm just curious generally about the type of placement tests those universities offer. :)

 

I'm hoping my daughter will bring the test with her when she comes home for Christmas break later this month! Curious minds do want to know. :)She did tell me that they were given an hour to answer several short questions testing grammar and to translate three passages (each a paragraph or two). I think that she told me one of the authors was Cicero. She said that they were passages of the level of what she'd read at home, but not selections that she was familiar with from her studies. She'd read Caesar, Vergil, Cicero, Horace, Ovid, and Catullus at home with me.

 

~Kathy

[Dmmetler]

What I'm hearing seems to be that CLC isn't a great stand-alone Latin course. But I'm thinking that for a language-loving 6 yr old it might be just the supplement needed to a more grammatical Latin class-and provide the extra material needed to help slow down the pace and really get a good foundation before beginning real, serious Logic stage Latin in a few years.

 

I'll let you know how it goes.

[Laura Corin]

What I'm hearing seems to be that CLC isn't a great stand-alone Latin course. But I'm thinking that for a language-loving 6 yr old it might be just the supplement needed to a more grammatical Latin class-and provide the extra material needed to help slow down the pace and really get a good foundation before beginning real, serious Logic stage Latin in a few years.

 

I'll let you know how it goes.

 

I'd use Minimus as a supplement. It's the Cambridge-Latin-style course designed for primary/elementary school. Again it's very light on the grammar, but it's a fun introduction. If you are using it as a supplement you only need the textbook, not the pricey teacher's book.

 

Laura

[Dmmetler]

I'd use Minimus as a supplement. It's the Cambridge-Latin-style course designed for primary/elementary school. Again it's very light on the grammar, but it's a fun introduction. If you are using it as a supplement you only need the textbook, not the pricey teacher's book.

 

Laura

I'm using Minimus as a supplement for LfC A, and expect DD to finish Minimus and Minimus Secundus before next fall-which was why I started looking at CLC. She loves Minimus, but there's not much to keep her busy in those books.

[ElizaG]

With extra drill (as at my boys' school) Cambridge can work. If this requirement is not made explicit, however, it might not be the best programme for novice teachers of beginners.

As it happens, my vintage copy of CLC Unit I (2nd edition, 1982, no color pictures ;)) just arrived in the mail. There are three parts:

 

1) Student book.

 

2) 32-page "Language Information" pamphlet, intended for the student, that contains all the grammar and vocabulary that they're expected to learn in this unit.

 

3) 98-page "Teacher's Handbook" with suggestions for lesson planning, evaluation, homework assignments, how to introduce and reinforce grammar concepts, etc.

 

The Teacher's Handbook does explicitly state that the students should have additional daily language drill (though not memorizing and reciting tables, which they say is of "debatable" usefulness). There are suggested practice exercises for each grammar concept that's introduced, and it's clear that these suggestions are just meant to be a starting point. Teachers are expected to come up with more as they see fit.

 

Has this advice changed in the latest edition? Do they now recommend padding the lessons with computer games, fun activity sheets, and song-and-dance routines, instead of old-fashioned drill and translation exercises? I'm starting to wonder what's going on over there at Cambridge.

 

All of us have a background in maths, so it's easier for us to feel where drill is necessary; for beginners at Latin an all-in-one explicit package might be safer.

I agree that homeschool parents might find it challenging to to follow the advice in the TM, either because they don't have a feel for the language, or because they just have too much on their plates already. (I had this problem myself with Singapore, which is another reason we're no longer using it.) But CLC still seems like one of the best options for those who find themselves in the OP's situation. I mean, I think adapting Wheelock's for a 6 year old would be a bigger inconvenience. :tongue_smilie:

[ChandlerMom]

Not everyone's goal is to curl up with Cicero. Do I really expect to be able to do a better translation after a few years of study than an "expert"? Especially since I can easily find evaluations of that translation from other "experts". ;)

 

Some of us want to study latin with the WTM goals of learning how to learn ANY language (latin being one not spoken), improve SAT scores, pep for learning a romance language later....

 

Need to consider WHY a family is studying latin. The "best" curriculum for a person planning on pursuing a graduate degree in classical lang&lit may not be the best for a family just interested in more casual study of latin.

 

The OP seemed to be interested in something to feed the interest of her latin-voracious dc. Is she interested in keeping it fun or being rigorous? Is her dc going to be "ruined" forever if the curriculum isn't prepping her for college latin studies?

[ElizaG]

Need to consider WHY a family is studying latin. The "best" curriculum for a person planning on pursuing a graduate degree in classical lang&lit may not be the best for a family just interested in more casual study of latin.

This is a good point. For instance, our family does value "living Latin," and we expect our children to learn to communicate in the language, not just decode it. We're also primarily interested in reading Christian writers, rather than classical ones. There's a huge difference in the level of skill that's required to read different types of Latin. Even relative beginners can figure out the Vulgate Bible, as it was written in a simple style, without elaborate literary devices.

 

If some of my children go on to study the classics in depth, that would be great. In fact, I hope they're all able to do so. But I'm not about to start out at age 6 with the mindset of grooming them for Cicero. There's time enough for that in a few years. Meanwhile, Cambridge and similar methods are giving them an opportunity to get started on actually using the language, in ways that are of interest to them -- while taking advantage of young children's natural facility for inductive learning. :)

Edited December 6, 2010 by Eleanor

[rootsnwings]

Colors often distract the student, whether he be aware of it or no. Even if colors are cute, one concentrates the best on a dense black-and-white text, without too many distractions.

Unfortunately, it boarders impossible nowadays to get materials without these distractions, but when putting my things toghether, I try to make it plain text, and it really does provide a sort of relief for concentration with my children.

 

The additional problem is that a lot of those bombastic, color-filled materials actually attempt to hide this way a severe lack of content. Also, a lot of it is done for financial purposes - of course that you earn more if you "split" the material into several books, add lots of unnecessary things and distractions, and thus sell more books than a single, but a more dense one.

 

This video pretty much demonstrates what's wrong with Cambridge - behind computer games, first-level texts, acting out silly shows and "having fun" with Latin, there hides an inadequate knowledge for somebody who has studied it as long as those children have. If you listen very carefully to what they're saying, you'll notice that they essentially know close to nothing, it's all variations of the same basic-level things. Give these kids an actual text in classical Latin and they'll be lost - and they're not even on the way of getting there.

 

It probably also "helps" that a lot of their teachers aren't Latin specialists, but "enthusiasts who learn alongside children". Of course that to that profile of people Cambridge fits, because they themselves don't really know what they're teaching, and Cambridge is "lots of fun".

 

I just wanted to point out that the children in this video are studying chapter 1 or 2 of Cambridge, Course I. They have not been "groomed for years" using Cambridge, they are just starting out. Just wanted to point that out!! :)

[Dmmetler]

I just got the North American 3rd edition, and except for one historical photo a chapter, everything is black/white line drawings. I think DD will enjoy it. It looks like, grammar-wise, it gets to about the same level as LfC A by the end, so I think alternating, one volume of LfC, then one volume of CLC, should work well, and hopefully prepare her to go into a more "real" Latin course than either when she's a little older and better able to handle it.

 

I also want to start Spanish For Children, so she gets a more grammatical approach there, so going to a different form for Latin for next year will probably be good to avoid confusion-if not for her (she seems to have no trouble keeping multiple languages straight) than for me!